[LWN Logo]

Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:25:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: info-gnu@gnu.org
Subject: Caution: Motif is still not free software

A couple of weeks ago, the Open Group changed the license of Motif,
inviting free software developers to use it.  However, the new Motif
license does not fit either the definition of free software, or the
looser definition of open source software.

Their announcement says they have released Motif to "the open source
community", but this is true only in an unnatural interpretation of
the words.  They have not made Motif available within the free
software community; instead, they have invited the people in the free
software community to leave the community by using Motif.

I've written to the Open Group about this, asking them to change the
license.  We can hope they will, but we can't assume it.  In the
present circumstances, we have to treat Motif the same way we treated
it before: not available for us.  Motif still cannot be part of a free
operating system, and combining or linking someone else's GPL-covered
code with Motif is still a violation of the GPL except in very special
circumstances.

Fortunately there is a free software alternative to Motif, called
LessTif.  Most programs that were written for Motif can use LessTif
with no changes.  Please support the free software community by using
LessTif rather than Motif.  Some finishing work still needs to be done
on LessTif; to volunteer, contact lesstif@hungry.com.

Here are some of the problems of the Motif license:

* It claims that you accept the license merely by "using" Motif.  Only
a shrink-wrap license or something similar can do that, and
shrink-wrap licenses are a bad thing.

* The license is restricted to use on certain operating systems, those
which fit a category they call "open source".  Both the Free Software
Movement and the Open Source Movement consider use restrictions
unacceptable.

* Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial
GNU/Linux distributions.  They typically include some non-free
software--an unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the
criterion specified in the Motif license.

* Their definition of the term "open source" is very different from
the one used by the Open Source Movement, thus causing confusion.

In the Free Software Movement, we disagree with the Open Source
Movement about basic philosophy and values.  (For more explanation,
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.)
Nonetheless we can't approve of confusing the public about what their
basic criteria are.  The facts of the situation are complex enough;
confusing the issue is not welcome.